Those of us who've grown up in the Church -- at least since the 18th century -- have been influenced by ways of thinking that we really don't even realize.
Take, for example, the idea of miracle.
At least since the 18th century, those of us who've ever given much thought to these things have to take a stand: Either miracles happen or they don't. And, as anyone who has taken Philosophy 101 knows, David Hume pretty much demolished the logical idea of a miracle back then. According to Hume, there can never be sufficient logical evidence that miracles ever happened. So, since you can't prove miracles ever occurred, Jesus obviously didn't do them. And since Jesus never performed a miracle, he wasn't divine.
And so many Christians find themselves unable to respond to Hume's critique precisely because they take the assumption -- namely, that miracles are an intervention into the natural world by a God who's somewhere remote -- as a fact.
What boggles my mind about all that is that the New Testament really isn't all that concerned with Jesus' miracles. In fact, the incarnational claim -- that God is with us as a human being in time and space -- isn't connected to anything remotely like a miracle at all.
Even the word miracle is rather strange to the Bible. It just simply isn't there. The gospels use all kinds of words about what Jesus does, and really none of them approximate the idea we have in mind when we're talking about miracles. They use words like paradoxa, things one would not normally expect; dunameis, displays of power or authority; terata or semeia, signs or portents. The closest we come to miracle is the single occurrence of thaumasia, "marvels", in Matthew 21.15. But, even then, it's not the same.
Why?
Again, because our idea of miracle is when God reaches down from outerspace and does something abnormal by the laws of scientific design.
Which just simply isn't what we Christians believe.
We believe, instead, that rather than invading the natural world and doing something "miraculous", God does something within the natural world. Something unanticipated, for sure, which may then be used to point to a power, an authority, at work in the world. But certainly not some alien force who's doing something completely unexpected.
When I read the psalms, instead, God seems rather involved. Jesus speaks of God knowing the very hairs on our heads and feeding the birds.
The word miracle is meant to answer several questions that have plagued humanity since the Enlightenment. Is there a spiritual dimension to the world? Which religion, if any, is "true"? To the first question, miracles say "yes", and to the second question, they respond with an affirmation of Christianity. In this mindset, miracles are proof that Jesus is God and that this God has intervened in the world. So we really can't be surprised when guys like Hume reverse the logic -- granted that we've never seen a miracle, they don't occur. And since they don't occur, Jesus isn't God and Christianity is false. And the Bible "untrustworthy".
What strikes me about those questions is just how lame they are. The Enlightenment project, for better or worse, was pretty much intellectually bankrupt. Few historians will deny claims about people in the ancient world did startling things, including Jesus. They've moved past that. Which means we Christians should too.
Instead of asking if miracles are real, I think we should be asking a couple of different questions: What did Jesus think he was doing, and why? What did his actions mean to those around him, and why were they passed on to us?
Because when you start digging for those answers, rather amazing and startling claims come to the surface.
Take, for example, the idea of miracle.
And so many Christians find themselves unable to respond to Hume's critique precisely because they take the assumption -- namely, that miracles are an intervention into the natural world by a God who's somewhere remote -- as a fact.
What boggles my mind about all that is that the New Testament really isn't all that concerned with Jesus' miracles. In fact, the incarnational claim -- that God is with us as a human being in time and space -- isn't connected to anything remotely like a miracle at all.
Even the word miracle is rather strange to the Bible. It just simply isn't there. The gospels use all kinds of words about what Jesus does, and really none of them approximate the idea we have in mind when we're talking about miracles. They use words like paradoxa, things one would not normally expect; dunameis, displays of power or authority; terata or semeia, signs or portents. The closest we come to miracle is the single occurrence of thaumasia, "marvels", in Matthew 21.15. But, even then, it's not the same.
Why?
Again, because our idea of miracle is when God reaches down from outerspace and does something abnormal by the laws of scientific design.
Which just simply isn't what we Christians believe.
We believe, instead, that rather than invading the natural world and doing something "miraculous", God does something within the natural world. Something unanticipated, for sure, which may then be used to point to a power, an authority, at work in the world. But certainly not some alien force who's doing something completely unexpected.
When I read the psalms, instead, God seems rather involved. Jesus speaks of God knowing the very hairs on our heads and feeding the birds.
The word miracle is meant to answer several questions that have plagued humanity since the Enlightenment. Is there a spiritual dimension to the world? Which religion, if any, is "true"? To the first question, miracles say "yes", and to the second question, they respond with an affirmation of Christianity. In this mindset, miracles are proof that Jesus is God and that this God has intervened in the world. So we really can't be surprised when guys like Hume reverse the logic -- granted that we've never seen a miracle, they don't occur. And since they don't occur, Jesus isn't God and Christianity is false. And the Bible "untrustworthy".
What strikes me about those questions is just how lame they are. The Enlightenment project, for better or worse, was pretty much intellectually bankrupt. Few historians will deny claims about people in the ancient world did startling things, including Jesus. They've moved past that. Which means we Christians should too.
Instead of asking if miracles are real, I think we should be asking a couple of different questions: What did Jesus think he was doing, and why? What did his actions mean to those around him, and why were they passed on to us?
Because when you start digging for those answers, rather amazing and startling claims come to the surface.